ms. heitcamp: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 522 s. 2117. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 21717, a bill to amend title 5, united states code and so forth and for other purposes.. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. ms. heitkamp: i ask unanimous consent that the warren substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 552, s. 2511. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 552, s. 2511 a bill to amend the employee retirement income security act of 1974 and so

forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. ms. heitkamp: i ask further that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: i ask unanimous consent that the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2440 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2440 a bill to expand and extend the program to improve coordination by the bureau of left-hand management and for other -- bureau of land management and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. heitkamp: i ask unanimous consent that udall new mexico amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as

amended be read a third time pafned -- and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: i ask unanimous consent that the veterans administration committee be discharged from further consideration of senate s. resolution 506 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 506 recognizing the patriotism and contributions of auxiliaries of veterans service organizations. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. heitkamp: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration en bloc of the following

resolutions which were submitted earlier today: s. senate resolution 547, s. resolution 548 s. resolution 549 and s. resolution 540. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. ms. heitkamp: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en banc with no intervening action or debate or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it recess until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, september 17, 2014, and that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date

and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 12:00 noon with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: the next roll call vote will be at 12:00 noon on the bass nomination as provided for by the previous order. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

talking about national defense. as we all know, last wk in a >> as we all know, last weekend a much-anticipated address to the nation president obama outlined the plan to defeat the islamic state in iraq and syria. i've want you to no i intend to do my part to make this plan a success. i am not alone in hoping that this goal to defeat not contain isis will replace the half measures and disengage meant that has to find the president's foreign policy today to.

the president's previous comment that we don't have a strategy yet sent the wrong signal to our allies and to our adversaries. in response to the president's address last week congress and the american people are now seeking specifics about the new strategy. i am hopeful that the new plan is strong enough and broad enough to be successful long-term. u.s. leaders and the projection of military might are critical to defeating the isis extremists thirteen years after september september 11th 2001 americans need to send a unified message that we remain resolved to fight this courage of global terrorism. it isis is part of that wreaking havoc in iraq and syria with

torture mass executions, crucifixions and plans for a islamic caliphate. as we all know isis broadcasts its savagery through gruesome propaganda on line including the horrific murders of two americans and a british aid worker. it is clear that our efforts today have been insufficient to overthrow this well-funded well -equipped and sophisticated army. it will take more that limited air strikes and the modest deployment of military advisers to curb the rapid spread of isis across northern iraq and syria. the united states must be committed to building a coalition that fosters regional cooperation dismantles the group's considerable financial network, and assess the iraqi kurdish and free syrian forces. i want to help the president

with his request for authorization to train and equip these forces. this coalition is to include muslim majority nations who are all in with a demonstrated resolve to defeat the islamic terrorists in their own neighborhood. the cost of inaction is already high. the rise of isis in northern iraq and its operations in syria have threatened regional security and the stability of our allies in jordan, turkey lebanon and kuwait. the involvement of foreign fighters raises fears of potential terrorist plots here at home. earlier this month defense secretary said there are more than 100 u.s. citizens with passports fighting for the terrorist group. he went on to say there may be more. we don't know. the secretary of defense.

the secretary will testify tomorrow before the armed services committee and has called isis an imminent threat to every interest we have weather and iraq or anywhere else. the secretary of state has expressed similar alarm saying though wickedness it represents must be destroyed i agree but if these statements are true then we should respond to them aggressively. like the secretaries the american public is concerned about the threat of isis to the united states. a new report by the "wall street journal" and nbc news says nearly seven in ten americans believe military action against isis in iraq and syria is in our national interest. americans are ready for a bold international strategy to confront these extremists

whose ruthless campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing has survived for too long. these radicals have driven tens of thousands from their homes in fear. according to news reports thousands of civilians have been slaughtered across northwestern iraq. general jack keene former vice chief of staff of the u.s. army senior vice president at the american enterprise institute put it this way in a recent "wall street journal" op-ed a u.s.-led international coalition can provide that military capability including air interdiction to deny isis freedom of movement take away its initiative to attack at will in iraq and dramatically reduce its sanctuary in syria. in other words, with u.s. lead an international cooperation we can defeat of his enemy and we ought to

get about the business of doing it. i believe congress should support our commander in chief in the fight against isis. a fight that can result in victory and a piece that can be sustained. i look forward to hearing more details about the president's plans when the secretary and general testified before the armed services committee tomorrow. there are questions to be answered. for example if public opinion turns will the administration loses its resolve? how long will it take to win? along will it take to crush isis? what is the definition of success? what is the definition of victory? if we accomplish our objectives will we once again abandon our gains as

we did after the surge in iraq? what is the plan to eliminate the terrorist group's financial network and are the president and congressional leaders willing to find a solution to prevent sequestration in order to fulfill the mission that more resources are required and more resources will be required, mr. president. addressing these questions is important to understand the specific goals and aims of the president's strategy which are yet to be fleshed out. americans and congress deserve this clarity. congress has the responsibility to provide the resources that our u.s. military needs for its missions. we do this through appropriations through the power of the purse and the national defense authorization act which has garnered bipartisan support for the past 52 years. under the capable lead of chairman live-in and ranking member in hough the armed

services committee approved a bill more than three months ago. so has the full house of representatives. it has passed the authorization act. i hope even at this late date majority leader reid will allow our country's major defense policy bill to come to the senate floor for consideration soon. an annual blueprint is vital to making sure that our troops have with the need to protect our national security interest at home and abroad. this year's bill includes a provision to stave off drastic cuts to the u.s. army which would put troop strength at levels not seen before world war ii. of well trained units like the 155th heavy brigade combat team of my home state of mississippi should not be jeopardized by short-sighted and ill consider proposals by the obama administration.

instead, under the committee bill an independent commission would have the opportunity to make recommendations on force structure and size before the national guard personnel could be cut for the apache attack helicopters could be transferred. another provision of the bill would allow for the u.s. navy and marine corps to modernize their amphibious warships. of these incredibly versatile our ships signal to the world that america's fighting forces can respond to threats rapidly. currently our fleet is significantly smaller than the number needed to perform the required emissions and many ships are near the end of their service. the defense authorization bill as passed on a bipartisan basis by the committee would authorize the construction of a 12th of pd 17 worship ensuring the men and women who defendants in perilous corners of the globe have

world-class hardware for their missions. i believe it would be a fitting tribute to the center of live then who is retiring at the end of this year after decades of distinguished service for the senate to take up the spill in regular order and pass it as a tribute to our retiring chair. in conclusion we have work to do. the senate armed services committee and the house of representatives have passed the defense authorization bill. it is time for the senate to follow suit. america has the most formidable fighting force and the world and his presence must remain resilient as dangerous groups like isis put our interests at risk. a rapid rise of these barbaric terrorists is a wake-up call for u.s. leaders. now that the president has declared his intention to degrade and destroy isis militants, we must insure

that the mission is filled. >> the senate today confirmed two new members of the nuclear regulatory commission and an assistant secretary of veterans affairs for policy and planning. senators are waiting for spending legislation from the house, current funding for the federal government expires at the end of the month. house legislation would fund the government through december 11th and authorizes the defense department to provide assistance and training to syrian fighters opposing isis. we are expecting a final passage vote and the house on that bill tomorrow and then it moves to the senate produced more also the senate moves to vote on several nominations at noon including nominees for u.s. ambassador to turkey and an assistant army secretary. follow live service coverage here on c-span2. and as congress debates military assistance to isis we will bring you a debate tonight on war and the constitution. senior policy adviser for

the from paul 2012 presidential campaign and former deputy assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel now a professor of law at university of california berkeley will face off on that issue tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and keep public policy events and every weekend book tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable-tv industry had brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> louisiana governor this morning said he will not decide whether to run for president until after this year's midterm elections. he spoke with reporters at the christian science monitor breakfast in washington and answered questions about climate change birth control, and the islamic state in iraq

and syria. >> here we go. thank you for coming. our guest this morning as louisiana governor governor jindal. it his last visit with our hearty band was in march. welcome back. the fast start in life. he graduated from brown at 20 with degrees in biology and public policy and then studied at oxford as a rhodes scholar having turned down acceptances harvard medical school and yale law. after briefly working at mckinsey and company at 24 our guest became head of louisiana's 13000 employees department of health and hospitals. at 27 he became executive director of the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare. it in a 2-year tour of president of the university of louisiana which led to president bush nominated him at age 30 of assistance secretary of health and human services.

next he ran into law race for governor in 2013 but 2004 was elected to the house is the first indian american elected to congress since 1956. elected governor of louisiana in 2007, at 36 the youngest in the nation at that time and reelected with 66 percent of the vote in october 2013. the governor and his wife for the parents of three hearing children. he corrected me the last time. credit to his wife, he said. thus ends the biographical portion. the rich will recitation of ground rules. as always we are of the of record. no live blocking or tweeting, a short of filing of any kind to give us time to listen to what our guest says. no embargo in the session. to help you resist that relentless urge we will e-mail several pictures of the session to of reporters here as in is the breakfast inns. as regular attendees know if you would like to ask a question to the traditional

thing and send a non disrupting signal an hour will happily call when at a time. we will start off by offering our guest the opportunity to make some comments command and we will move to questions. since we got started late we will stop at ten of 5:00 p.m. thank you for coming. >> thank you very much for having me. i want to thank you for allowing me to come back. it is a great honor to be here. an organization that i helped to start devoted to creating specific policy solutions that help move our country forward. i am here to talk about our second policy proposal about making sure that america realize our potential as an energy superpower. we have given you a copy of the report. forty-two specific policy recommendations. for the sake of time i am not toward to go through each and everyone. i thought i would give opening remarks and open up to questions of assuming

that you can read the report and recommendations. >> i want to imagine if you would, that there was a country that had more oil coal natural gas combine than any other in the world. only one other country that has more than half the resources of this country. a country that in addition to having these fossil fuels' had the most advanced renewable energy sector when it comes to biofuel. imagine that some country have been the largest nuclear power as well. many folks might guess that would be saudi arabia or russia or china. it is actually the united states of america. and we're blessed with natural resources and an advanced energy market. we have got a choice to make. right now we have policies and a way of our taking advantage of these energy resources. the reality is right now we have an administration that

our science deniers when it comes to heart is in america's energy resources and potential to create it paying jobs for our economy. right now we have an administration his policies are holding our economy hostage. we have got a choice to make is a country. do we unleash the energies we have got develop our own energy so we can create good paying jobs to lower the cost of energy for our families and consumers so that we can grow our economy, or do we continue down a path toward where energy is made more scarce, expensive, and we harm our economy exporting jobs to other countries all over the world? that really is the choice in front of us. so what we're about one today is a path forward so that america could harness our energy resources, develop our potential, grow our economy. when of the most concerning things to me about the obama administration there are a

lot of things that concern me. in a coherent foreign policy obamacare and many other policies. one of the most troubling things his this new normal. we are accepting 2% economic growth as a recovery. we have in the near record low of work-force participation. you have to go back to 1978. more and more people think this is the best we can do becoming more and more dependent on government instead of creating good paying jobs that will help our children and grandchildren into the middle class harnessing america's energy resources. one very specific pick step toward creating the kind of strong economy we need so our kids can pursue the american dream. important policy. the congressman from taxes is a co-author. there are others that worked on this report. i want to thank you for inviting me to come speak and would be happy to take

your questions. >> i will do one were to. you have a lot of experience on health issues. today president obama will be at the center for disease control and prevention where he will announce according to what the administration has been saying additional measures in response to the ebola epidemic in africa. the ap says that he is going to assign 3,000 military personnel to the affected region, trade up to 500 health care workers per week erect 17 health care facilities with 100 beds each and set up a joint command and liberia. as a health policy expert, what is your assessment of the response to the ebola outbreak? >> i will send a couple of things. i think it is appropriate that we are stepping up our efforts direct and indirect assistance. even though experts think it is very unlikely we would see a widespread epidemic here compared to what you're seeing overseas, i think we

have got certainly both the humanitarian basis as well as a vested interest in wanting to help countries in africa that are hardest hit. many think of the impact on the political stability economic stability the potential impact on the entire region and ultimately the world i think it is important that we lean forward. it does not surprise me that america is the first among all nations offering assistance. i think more can be done. i think the world health organization could have been more effective other countries could have been more aggressive. this is an epidemic that is clearly overwhelming the limited resources in the worst countries who simply do not have the training the medical personnel the basic containment equipment. and you can see it in terms of the spread of the disease and difficulty in providing treatment and even something as simple as burning or cremating bodies. it is a good thing that our government is leaning forward and american

charities have been leaning forward in providing assistance as well. it is a part of who we are as the american people. we respond to humanitarian crises over the world. whether or not there were a direct strategical interest or impact on our country. in this case i happen to think there will be if we don't, but i think it is the right thing to do regardless of that potential. it is a good thing that we are stepping up our assistance. i think not enough has been done. it has been -- it does show some gaps to respond. i think that we do need a fix for what did not work. >> she told him as nbc last month that you were thinking and praying about 2016 but would not decide until november. how are you thinking and

praying by the new cnn poll of new hampshire voters showing you among the potential republican presidential hopefuls? what does that say to you about your name recognition and this -- the effectiveness of the strategy of rolling out position papers? >> i think i don't have as many readers as i thought. [laughter] >> another nail in the coffin. >> basically dead. [laughter] that's a whole other story. a couple of things. >> are they feeding u.s. well? >> not feeding me. that's right. you did offer me foods. a couple of things. it is true i am thinking of bringing about whether i will run in 2016. i will make that decision until after november.

the first time i ran for office i was polling within the margin of error which means i was at zero at that point. at this point polls are measuring but if i were to decide every time i have run for office the reason i decided had nothing to do with polls numbers or fund raising but because i felt like i have something to offer, a unique perspective offering specific solutions and experiences that i did not feel other candidates were offering. when i ran for governor for the state of louisiana-like we had to make big changes. the only state in the south for 25 years in a row where we have more people leaving and coming in. i am not going to bore you with a long list but after 25 years we have had six years of immigration. our economy has grown nearly twice as quickly as the national gdp.

more people working than ever before earning a higher per-capita income with more people living in louisiana than ever before. $80 billion of private investment over 50000 new jobs. it is the best economy we have had in over a generation. we did that by making big changes. we cut our state budget 26%. the largest income tax cut in our state's history. the point of all that if our does decide to run for office it would have nothing to do with polls were fund-raising but would be based on the ex-im calculation i made when i ran the same decision making process when i decided i would run for congress or governor. to let the guy can make a difference, do i have something unique to offer is it something that i am supposed to be doing? i will make that decision until after november. we have 36 governor races.

florida with rick scott on saturday in georgia last week campaigning with other governors and gubernatorial candidates in the week ahead. we have other elections many to win. >> i was hoping you would give us your take. a runoff? >> i think it means we absolutely have to beat mary andrew p. she is out of touch with the voters, has doubled down on failed policies of harry reid and the president well over 90 percent of the time. double down on her vote for obamacare. even though she is now chairman of the senate energy committee she has not been able to do anything, for example getting the keystone pieplant approved. by the way, you now see the canadian prime minister calling obama's for straighter in chief. canadians are looking toward sending their oil toward the

chinese instead of the preferred customers i asked about the united states. so i think that we need to replace mary lynn true. it will happen this year. it is possible we could have a runoff. we have an open primary because of court decisions. we used to do the open primary before november. our first election in november. a runoff in december. happened in 2002 it is possible. i look forward to seeing everyone of you in my state in the intervening weeks. i think there would be very bad for her. she is trying hard time from her record, harry reid president obama. she cannot hide in the december runoff. she could lose in november but i think a runoff is possible. in terms of energy politics energy is an important part of the economy. a leading oil and gas producer. we support -- many companies

support the industry, but we are involved in other aspects of energy production as well. i just announced two major capital investments from companies using sugar cane waste products to convert gas and energy. we have also got significant companies that work in the nuclear and other industries as well. i think the fact that mary will certainly, despite her position and seniority on the senate in d.c. has not been able to actually produce policy results that are beneficial to the energy economy and industries back home. but do not think her time and experience will be an advantage. if anything it is a disadvantage. i think she will be one of the senators that we are going to of removed as part of taking the majority this year. >> governor, you were the originator of the new republican position on birth

control. i am wondering if you see any specific senate races were candid it's have adopted this position and also, do you think that insurance companies should be required to cover over the counter birth control? >> a couple of things. one, i see this becoming more common in many different races. a colorado and north carolina in particular. i think that the fact that the left has reacted so loudly shows you that it is working. i think that they realize this is no longer a tactic that they can use. to be clear by allowing -- and when i originally offered this idea we were following the recommendations. they have been sitting there for a while. the doctors themselves think this is a safe product that should be offered over-the-counter.

allowing the product to be offered over the counter does not stop a woman from being able to get the product of the prescription through our doctor and therefore would still be covered. some democrats are trying to attack republican senatorial candidates. we are not saying that it cannot still be offered with a prescription. in terms of whether the -- nothing removes their obligation to pay for. a patient could still have the insurance company pay for it if she were to get a prescription. in terms of over the counter not just about over the counter but in general i am not in favor of a one-size-fits-all mandate from the federal government. i think insurance companies will continue to pay for it. it would be cheaper for them to pay for it over the counter instead of requiring the customers to go to the doctors. secondly, i think it will

respond to market pressure. third unfortunately insurance companies tend to view things in terms of dollars and cents. they will make the calculation that the birth control would be cheaper than paying for the pregnancy they view it as an expense. think it would be in their economic interest to pay for over-the-counter. it to be clear often over the counter is not taking away a woman's ability to get the product with a prescription from a doctor where it would be covered under current law. we are giving an additional option, not taking something away. >> right now it is totally hypothetical. do you know of any plans to do that? do you expect this will happen? is this just a good political answer? >> i think it needs to happen. dca collusion. you have everybody these big companies and big government benefiting from the current system.

big pharmaceutical companies to make more money when it is a product requires a prescription from products offered over the counter. it does lower the cost. we have seen drug companies resisting previously. historically they have done this in some cases to protect patents protecting access to sales on they had exclusive rights. in general tour companies have not necessarily done this very eagerly or aggressively. sir right now you have the government and big farmers. i think pressure needs to be put. these are products that have been out and used for several years. when you look at other products that have been used as safely as they have they have come over the counter. if a woman does not want to there is no reason she should have to go to her insurance company or doctor. no reason her employer should have to be involved if she does not want to be.

again that does not stop or ability to it written for for prescription when it is offered insurance companies will pay for it. it will be cheaper over-the-counter. again, i think unfortunately they look at it in terms of dollars and cents. it is cheaper for them to pay for the over-the-counter drug. i think that the insurance companies will pay for it. finally, they will respond to consumer pressure. customers will demand it. >> we will go next. were you signalling me? >> i was. >> you were. okay. [laughter] >> i wanted to go back to the energy policy for a

minute. you had a number of fairly harsh things to say about the administration's policies regarding climate change. your recommendations on the subject seem to be to overturn the massachusetts verses that epa supreme court decision which allowed the epa to regulate withdrawing from the international negotiated process and then in terms of dealing with the problem funding more university research, improving forest management to cut down on forest fires and tinkering with the air traffic control system to improve the mileage of their plans. so my question is can your party succeed by writing off those voters who regard this as an urgent issue? >> doing a bit more than that. one, when i sit withdraw -- you simply said i said withdraw from the international get -- negotiating system. the gush -- withdraw from a

specific flawed system which i think has become a corrupt and some who are concerned by clever change have said it is not an effective system. i then went on to say i do think the united states shooting gauge it realistic international discussions with our major trading partners on major economic competitors. and the report saying that when does not have to be -- and he says it better than i well. one does not have to be a believer organizer to be also convinced that is is a good thing to control emissions to reduce emissions and to seek to be more efficient. i have explicitly said let's define this. that is an important thing. my point is that unilaterally hurting our economy will do nothing to help the environment and it is going to end up destroying millions of good paying american jobs. especially when you look at the fact that china has added more new coal

production in the last few years that our entire co-production of the country. the majority of co2 -- the majority of the growth in emissions is coming from developing countries. china now in its more co2 that america and all the countries of the western hemisphere put together. if we simply take unilateral action all we will do is drive energy intensive companies overseas manufacturing processes to other countries with weaker environmental protections which does nothing for the environment and hurts our economy. in my state one of the country's largest steel companies a few years ago was thinking of where to put the most modern steel plant ever. when we were competing for the project relies not competing with texas and georgia but brazil. they ended up building at. we were able to persuade them to build in st. james parish. the total project if they end up to all five phases is over $3 billion to 1,000 direct jobs 4800 indirect jobs.

the ceo and chairman said we are building this plan. we needed as part of our integrated operations. tell the question is whether the building here are overseas. my concern is if we unilaterally hurt the economy what will happen is countries will shift capital and investment overseas creating jobs elsewhere. absolutely let's listen to scientists absolutely let's listen to her job creators and work with our major trading partners and competitors and have china at the table europe at the table, work together to address these issues and not do so in a way that unilaterally hurts our economy. we can't pursue no regret policies. we talk about megawatts. there are regulations policies that reduce the amount of energy used. the cheapest energy that you have is the energy you don't need. and we encourage the use of

sustainable and renewable forms of energy as well. we just want a level playing field. i think that we can address -- for those that have concerns we could do it based on sound science at the same time strengthen the economy. a strong grip economy and a strong environment are not mutually exclusive. we can have both. i think a weaker economy makes it harder to protect the environment. we can do both. part of it is harvested erin energy resources and working with major trading partners and competitors. given some of the policies this about restoration has adopted we are exporting of a 10% of our call to other countries. instead of us burning it we are simply sending it to china and other countries. we are simply exporting our energy resources as well as energy intensive manufacturing jobs which is bad for the environment and simultaneously bad for our economy. >> mr. stanton. [inaudible question]

>> punishing us for immoral behavior. wanted to see if you could comment on that a little bit and more broadly on the question of the culture of war and whether or not it is something that should be fought on where stayed away from? >> i have said this. comments at the beginning of the year. perfectly capable of explaining and defending his own words. i said at the time he certainly could have used -- he said some things i would not have necessarily said but he is a friend and i stood up at the time and still stand up for his right to speak. whether people agree with him or not he has a right to say what he wants. i think it was wrong for people that want to silence. you have a remote-control. switch the channel. there are private company.

they don't have to carry the show. i just thought it was wrong to try to silence someone rather than simply saying switch the channel. we don't have to agree with everything. i'm not going to try to explain or defend everything that he says. he's perfectly capable. he is a friend. did not agree back then and i don't necessarily an going to agree with everything he says. terms of the bigger issue of the cultural -- i will say this, in terms of those and would certainly think as governor and as a husband and father are want everyone to be treated with compassion. i think that certainly just like we would treat somebody with cancer or any other illness we should do everything we can to help them recover do everything we can to help them lead a fulfilling and productive life and everything we can to ease whenever challenges they face. i would say that about anybody with any illness.

in the elements if any one of our loved ones has any kind of physical or mental illness or health problem we wanted to get better and what does a society to do everything that we can't help that person get better. would my trees someone with aids any differently than i was someone who have heart disease or cancer or diabetes or anything else. we need to continue researching and providing compassionate care to those with any health challenge. i gave a speech at the reagan library earlier this year. i outlined what i think is the biggest challenge when it comes to social -- you look at the social view in perspective. the war on religious liberty. right now sincere religious faith. when you hear the president and former secretary clinton

talk about freedom of religious expression they seem to confine it to being able to have your religious views in church or temple or wherever you worship on sunday and that's it as a post a living out your religious views 24 hours a day. i think the real assault is on religious liberty. i think bobby lott case with the family was being threatened with over a million dollars a day in fines was correctly decided when it was decided. i wish it would have been 9-0 but i think this is only the latest example of assault on religious liberty and dca on other cases. there went in and tried to argue that there was no ministerial exemption that have been long recognized in the employment loss. think about that, but is dangerous about that, they did not have to claim that. they could have gone in with a much more narrow argument.

instead the government was claiming that there was no protection for churches to select who gets to administer the gospel and their settings. they did not even have to argue that. i think that was dangerous. it was decided 9-0 against the administration. every supreme court justice agreed the administration overreached. what was worrisome is the administration tried the argument that it made. i was glad it got turned down. the bigger issue is this assault on religious liberty the president spoke eloquently about defending the rights of questions overseas. he did a beautiful job talking about it. i am not trying to conclude the to, but it was for many of us shocking to hear him speak so eloquently about was helping overseas and the rights and protections will ignored what was happening and how. religious liberty didn't create the united states --

of surrey, the united states did not create religious liberty. it is the reason that our country was -- one of the fundamental reasons our country was founded and is the foundation -- without religious liberty there is no freedom of speech. i think there is a growing issue in terms of this assault on religious liberty. my final thought on this is that my hope would be even those that may not share the same conservative social views as angelico christians or other believers to happen to be right now at the forefront of the religious liberty fight my hope would be that they would combine even if they disagreed with the particular views can still fight for the ability of those individuals to live their fears and say, we may not agree with your views on marriage or whenever the issue of but we think in this country you have the ability to live your life according to your views. we have always had that as a country. i would hope this is

something that would mobilize folks across the political spectrum. i would hope that it would be a bipartisan, broad consensus. they just happen to be the ones that feel their rights are being infringed upon and happen to be the ones are speaking of. religious liberty is an issue. >> thank you for being here. the cbo reported that medicare express would climb significantly. outlining specific plans to cut the cost of entitlements does that undermine the long term? >> not all. part of the challenge in reforming medicare and entitlement unfortunately it gets down to the cbo windows. and you have seen that as a recent phenomenon the gimmicks that have been done to try to get to make policies that may have a

short-term impact. we are looking at medicare specifically, the part a trust fund insolvency date the actuarial reports, not just a short-term cbo reports. we have a program that is incredible distress facing long-term challenges. if we want to continue to sustain and preserve this program for not only our parents and grandparents but future generations as well, the challenge here in d.c. is if you look at everything in five and to your windows you get band-aids but never addressed the problem. medicare is still growing. the costs are growing faster than economic growth. you have a program where you -- the baby boomers have not yet become -- they have not yet gotten to the age as a co or red hair going to be consuming their most or consuming even more medical resources than they are today. in the future you will see

baby boomers consuming more medical resources and have more health care needs. we are at the front of this tidal wave that will change the program. i think certainly in the short term it is good news. of the law of return you still face a trust fund that will run out of my long before the baby boomers have finished getting health care a program with costs rising more quickly than economic growth. more importantly a program that is not officially responded to the needs of its members, a program that is not dabble in adopting a technology company procedures is not responsive and providing the best quality care. medicare has done many important things and so i think it is important to continue, but it is also important to improve. proposals i put forward for example the specific prescription to premier support would allow both taxpayers and beneficiaries to save money while improving the program. i think the urgency is there and to think that it will be

important for leaders of both parties to come together. i will save you go back -- and this is an builds in me to speak about my history, if you go back to the 90's the was a bipartisan willingness to work across party lines. rabat able to get that bill passed, but you have senators working together on legislation senators kerry and grow on the commission. you had folks like the dlc endorsing premium support. you had folks willing to work across the aisle. republicans on the commission at that time were willing to have prescription drugs to the medicare program, democrats willing to at premium support to the program as part of an overall approach. i think that there is a path forward. i do think it will require a strong leader in the white house and both parties to work together. it was possible in the 90's and i think it is possible and necessary again

at combined. [inaudible question] >> a couple of things. i think the support of congress for the administration's request of funding and authorizing the use of air strikes and other force against isis right now i think that they are in the process of approving that request, especially the air strikes whether in syria or iraq. look this is a terrorist group that threatens american interest western interest. i am critical of the president's rhetoric and policy. his delay has allowed this trip to gather strength. his strategy of leading from by desmond america weaker and the world more dangerous. after the barbaric padding of the reporter he was eloquent in expressing the nation's grief but unfortunately the president

as he always is was eloquent in expressing grief, but grief is not a strategy. he talked about containing isis and iraq expelling isis. what i want to stay here and say is whitney to hunt them down and kill them. i think that is the lying has allowed them to get their land and resources. to impose a greater threat. his speeches were the same as results, we would have the best president in the history of the country. unfortunately we cannot. we would have the best foreign policy in a generation. unfortunately we did not. the president has been eloquent but his actions have not backed it up. it is incumbent upon the president to present a plan to congress. personally think he has the authority in his role to do a limited attack and strikes to defend their country. i think it is right for him to go to congress to make his case to the american people, to get that

authority. i am glad there in the process of doing that. it is incumbent upon and to share a strategy with the congress and american people about how we will eliminate this threat cannot contain or degrade. i think that the discussion about the international coalition partners and what they're willing to do. it is better have a coalition battered have allies, especially when you look at cutting down the financing available to the group controlling the borders and providing intel. at the end of the day american needs to be willing to lead command a think the more that our allies see that america is willing to lead the more likely there will be to want to join the coalition. the challenge we have with this administration's approach to foreign policy is our friends did not trust us and our enemies did not ferris. there is no doubt in my mind that russia would not be battering in the ukraine if they truly feared and respected the folks in the white house.

there is no doubt in my mind that it had an impact with within the first year he unilaterally withdrew the missile receptors that would be based in poland and the of ministration did not allow georgia into nato in the first year and offered the reset to russia and later through the red line in syria and then there were not consequences. i think when this administration did not wholeheartedly and unequivocal support israel in their fight all of that can usually has consequences allies and enemies are watching. my greatest concern when it comes to foreign policy is what takeaway message does iran take from watching america's approach to foreign policy? it is an existential threat to us, our allies and the world. we cannot allow that to happen. my worry is what calculation they are making based upon our unwillingness to date to follow through.

america must lead. a stronger america leads is a more peaceful world. fewer deployments of american troops. that is true. i wish this of ministration would believe in practice that. i think the support of congress to fund the training of moderate rebels in syria as well as the strikes on targets and the strikes against isis whether in syria or iraq i do think they should approve the funding in the resolution they are requesting. >> governor, a couple of science questions. i thought you said at the beginning -- [inaudible conversations] >> i know you are a biology major. did you say at the beginning that the administration are science deniers? >> i did. >> a couple follow ups. what did you mean by that? >> several examples of their approach to energy policy. over five years as the keystone pipeline that they have been studying.

the state department said there would be no material impact on the environment to approve it committed to keep delaying it denying approval to one of our closest allies who simply wants to sell as crude oil and then buy back some of that has refined product dumping our economy and there's. there is no scientific basis for this to continue to be delayed other than pure politics. when you look at their approach funding -- conservatives used to like to say that government should pick winners and losers. this of ministration is just picking losers. they have an awful record as a venture capitalist. it seems like the only type of energy sources they want to find others that are expensive and will not succeed. you look at their approach to the epa and the recent co2 rules. even if you agree with the massachusetts supreme court

ruling, look up what they are doing. a 40% reduction. we are -- when you look and louisiana our biggest source of electricity as natural gas. we have nearly 20 percent, which is nuclear. we are not a high coal burning state. when we asked the epa with a came up to 40% we get one of the highest target reductions. they could not explain the rationale. it is not likely. it's not like we have older plants that could be easily replaced or modernized or upgraded. we have already significantly relied on natural gas and nuclear. ..

do you think the earth the climate is changing and the earth is warming or do you believe human activity has something to do with that? >> the climate is absolutely changing. the real question is how much is a change and what are the consequences? it's not controversial to say that human activity is not contribute in some way. certainly. in terms of how much of how serious that is my attitude is let the scientist decide that. politicians don't need to decide that. as we address it and again i will quote krauthammer. you don't have to be a climate change believer or deny her to believe that they can't be good for us to be -- there's nothing

wrong in terms of wanting to reduce emissions coming out of a common industry. >> do you personally believe that human activity is leading to changes and the global climate? >> i would hope it's not controversial. i'm sure human activity has an impact on the climate that i would leave it to scientist to decide how much, what that means and the consequences. >> is in their consensus on that? >> but again my plan is not to litigate that but my plan is to extend that we are addressing that. we should be doing it in concert with their international partners and competitors. the actions this administration has taken one don't improve the environment and hurt our economy. >> you can. >> he concealed his on line at c-span.org. we leave this and take you live to the national press club in washington where the committee for the republic is hosting a debate on war and the constitution with bruce fein at senior policy adviser to the ron

paul 2012 campaign and john yoo former attorney general for the office of legal counsel at the u.s. department of justice. both are authors of books on the constitution. live coverage of this debate getting underway here on c-span2. >> john is a deputy assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel in the bush justice department. john brought a number of key legal memos supporting bush's post 9/11 counterterrorism policies. and then bruce was associate deputy attorney general under president reagan and also was chief policy adviser to rand paul during the 2012 presidential campaign. and harvey, stand up. harvey is going to be our moderator. harvey is currently with the

national war college. harvey's last job was director the last government job you worked for the director of national intelligence. her breathe baryshnikov. [applause] there wasn't a single founder who doubted that going to war was the most important decision the republic would make. the war power is the most important power because war is the greatest threat to a republic. war concentrates power. the executive has more of an incentive to go to war than the legislature. the founders placed the power to declare war in the legislature not with the president. the founder understood were better than any other founder was george washington, too upon him retiring as the first

president of the united states come he gave a long farewell address in which he spelled out the foreign-policy to the founders. washington said we should stay neutral in foreign wars. we should start military alliances with all foreign powers because they would entangle us in their wars. to support neutrality washington said we should be wary of overbroad military establishments. he said we should not borrow more money in our generation than we can pay off and of course avoid political factions. that sounds pretty good to me. i'm sticking with george. let's see what our speakers have to say tonight. harvey why don't you come up. you are the moderator. we are going to do 10 minutes each. bruce you are going to go first and then john and ben harvey is going to ask some questions of

the panelists and then we are going to open it up to all of you to talk. thank you. [applause] v good evening and thank you for coming out. >> i wish they could do this with bruce's microphone. there it is. >> good evening. thank you for coming out tonight. i want to thank the press club for being so generous in the organization to do this. we have done us a number of times with john and bruce and myself. first i have to make the caveat i'm with the national war college in american bar association. i'm here in my personal capacity

and not representing those organizations per se but we think it's very important to have a dunce like this and you could not have two more experienced debaters. what we are going to do is as laid out as we will have 10 minutes on each side and family will have five minutes for rebuttal and then i will pose a few questions that may have been raised by the speakers. does someone have a pan out there? then i think what we want to do is get the audience involved. what i encourage you to do this as a law professor asked short crisp questions. i don't think this is my opportunity to have political speeches and it really is an opportunity to sharpen debate that will take place on executive power and war. as was pointed out it's an extraordinarily timely issue that has great historical legacy and contemporary power. so with that bruce why don't you start off.

>> all those who seek to destroy liberty in democratic nations ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it. those were the words written by alexis de tocqueville in democracy of america over 150 years ago. the founding fathers were pressing into and recognizing that fact. james wilson one of the founding generations spoke about putting clogs -- cogs in the already of war and that is why every member of the ratification debates understood that only congress not the executive branch could authorize the initiation of warfare. congress doesn't aggrandize power. power diminishes in times of war. what is it the way it makes war so threatening to our republican dispensation? first the power of the government concentrates in

executive. our customary separations of powers principles. congress and the judiciary are reduced to virtual inc. blocks. the clerks seldom if ever interfere with any national security decision of the president. and we can see today the president claiming power during the so-called war against al qaeda, isis, iraq or otherwise. the power unilaterally on his say-so alone if he declares in imminent danger to the united states. the most awesome power ever entrusted to any individual. there is no judicial review. there's no review. it's final. that's not the only awesome power that the president wields as well in times of war. think of the powers of surveillance that were disclosed by edward snowden but even before then shortly after 9/11 the president claimed the power

under his terrorist surveillance program to intercept e-mails, conversations of americans internationally without statutory authorization whatsoever under the fisa court. then we had the detentions without accusation or trial at guantánamo bay. we don't have customary due process when you have a chance to confront your accusers. you are not accused of any particular crime or wrongdoing but these are examples of how the power of the president cline during wartime and presidents never surrender the power back. but there is a second wrench in our system during war and that is customary transparency and the heart of the idea of government by the consent of the government yields to secrecy. government by the consent of government is mocked if the people do not know what their government is doing. how can they give consent?

you find any discrepancies between what the government does and what the people agreed with a very new was going on and i think that is shown with edward snowden's disclosures. ever since 2006 the american people are ignorant of the telephony metadata program run by the national security agency. congress knew but they were too frightened and invertebrate to disclose it to the american people. with the disclosures the american people were alarmed by the fact that the nsa was collecting metadata on every single phonecall they had been involved in domestic or international. there were no exceptions in the collection was made about any suspicion that any of the data indicated involvement in terrorism crime or otherwise. think of that program when it was revealed to the public they were generally aghast and it was public pressure that forced president obama to curtail the

program by executive order and followed by congressional hearings for the first time all provoked by edward snowden and imagine the conversations you have had over the right to be left alone you have had because of edward snowden and not because of congress or the executive. that this kind of secrecy is characteristic during wartime and secrecy also i believe leads to misguided decisions of the type of the bay of pigs where he had the cia forecasting people would rise up against fidel castro and it was a disaster. i think president kennedy said he wished "the new york times" had leaked the bay of pigs before it happened to save him from that kind of fallout. aside from that it's simply the basic principle that in the united states we the people are sovereign. we get to decide their own destiny and how does that occur if we don't even know what the

government is doing? that is a key attendant of all wars. and then a third major detriment of war is invariably it cripples civil liberties. it invariably crippled civil liberties. safety has always viewed as supreme so the right to be left alone grumbles due process. we have military commissions that combined the adjudicative function with the founding fathers style which is the very definition of tyranny superseding civilian courts. we have not just with the nsa but increasing use of surveillance drones to watch where we are going when we walk outside. we have a sense of government programs that are initiated by the president through his claim to executive authority that we are still clueless about. edward snowden didn't have access to all the information the government was undertaking and it was probably true there were additional invasions of our

privacy that we still don't know about because of the secrecy and the general tendency during wartime to coordinate everything to safety. that's not what the founding fathers were the fourth amendment was based upon. the idea that we take risks that other people don't take in order to be free. it was captured in the 1763 address. this was the start of the american revolution and it shows you i think how distant we have been from our roots when we think and listen to these ringing words. the poorest man in his cottage he said may get defined to find to all the forces. the ref may shake in the winds may enter storms may enter, the rain may enter but -- cannot enter. all his forces may not cross the threshold.

think of how at variance or lives are today compared with that understanding that we have the right to be left alone and there's a fourth principle that i will adjust quickly. it really is the heart of who we are as a people. it's that we believe that it marks separable for us to take the risk of being a victim of injustice than to be complicit in it. we want -- we don't want to take stupid risks would let me explain one situation where the point is made rather graphically. about a year ago there was a hearing held by congressman allen grayson of florida which featured a 9-year-old granddaughter from pakistan. she related that one day her 60 or 8-year-old grandmother asked her to pick vegetables. they are out picking vegetables on the 9-year-old said once it appeared darkness in the sky. then she began to run and she thought she heard screams. she looked at her hands and they were bleeding.

she ran into looks at her hands again trying to get the blood to stop but couldn't. then she looked and her grandmother was exterminated by a predator drone. that is complicity and injustice. sometimes it's impossible and inescapable in wartime but that is another reason why we try to resist going to war except in self-defense authorized by congress. thank you. >> thank you bruce. bruce has painted a rather bleak picture. [applause] of executive excess and john what is your response? >> greetings everyone from the people's republic of berkeley. i enjoyed a chance to come to more conservative cities like washington d.c.. i also want to thank the committee on the republic and bruce fein and harvey rishikof

for putting this event together and having me come along. i have to confess i am not an expert debater. i have actually never debated in a setting like this where we look like presidential candidates. i'm very excited about this but i have every expectation of losing this election. so i want to start by saying i think bruce has won this debate. he wanted in 2008 because at that time we elected a president who agrees i think with much of what bruce stands for. we elected a president who during the campaign told the "boston globe" that he did not believe the president had has the constitutional authority to go to war. he didn't say to go to war, to use armed forces in hostility without self-defense. what did he do when he was president lexi withdrew from iraq.

he withdrew from afghanistan. we did not intervene in syria. on drums of surveillance which bruce is unhappy about as was criticized quite -- those are policies that met with congressional support and approval. if the complaint is that the executive, the president has gone on these adventures along i don't think actually characterizes the administration we have had in the obama administration. these are policies that when congress voted day support them. i don't think this has resulted in a good policy if you look at the results of a kind of president we have now or the policies that bruce has defended. we are right now confronting a terrible terrorist threat. i think it's worse now than it was six years ago. i think we should ask ourselves whether we are more secure now than we were six years ago. i think the threat of isis in iraq is much worse than the way

iraq was left at the time of the administration. i think the reason why i disagree with bruce's arguments is i think it's a mistaken view of presidential power. in brief, my view is that the constitution gives the president the power to respond quickly and energetically in the face of crisis, in the face of war emergencies, unforeseen circumstances. in fact this is characterized our most successful presidents. george washington at the very beginning congress mentioned george washington at the beginning of our proceedings. george washington issued a neutrality proclamation and he said it was his authority as the chief executive to be able to define the foreign policy of the country to keep the united states out of war between britain and france. this was seen as a great -- by

his critics estimate angrand -- aggrandisement of power. link in response to the civil war not like his predecessor james buchanan who most to most historian experts think of as the worst president in american history. he said i should ask congress what to do about the secession congress and congress for those of you who have worked there as i have you can predict what congress did. congress said that the special committee to study the problem. i think they are still meeting in the basement of the capital right now. president lincoln comes into office and what did he do? he read his presidential powers broadly may be broader than some people and certainly many in the south. he raised an army and sent into combat against the south. he put up a blockade of the south and most notably he issued the emancipation proclamation two years later praying under

the slaves under his commander-in-chief authority not with supportive commission of congress. congress actually never approved of the emancipation proclamation. for those of us who get our history from the movies it took lincoln to validate the fraying of the slaves. he did it under his executive power in the war. the last example i will give as franklin roosevelt in the years before world war ii. congress passed a series of neutrality acts to prevent us from getting into conflict in europe. president roosevelt did everything he could to prepare the country for war even in direct conflict with those statutes. i think roosevelt was right. it would be better for the country in the world and that the united states entered world war ii earlier than it did at pearl harbor. i would contrast out again with presidents like buchanan who responded to crises and responded to wars via think

following exactly the arguments that bruce has laid out. let congress decide. congress should have the initiative. president is there to execute congress's policies. think that is led to some of the worst problems we have had in our country's foreign policy and national security. that's not to say i'm arguing the president's power as to degrade and large and energetic at all times. depends on the circumstances. obviously president nixon is a good example of someone who tried to exercise excessive presidential time that they -- power that the times had not called for. let me step back from looking at the practice and look at the constitution ourselves. i think bruce talk directly about constitutional tasks but i assume his arguments based on the declare war cause. i would assume bruce would read that to mean once congress has decided in the country go to war and can the president then use

his powers as commander in chief to lead the armed forces. i think that's actually a mistaken view and i think it reads too much into the anti-executive atmosphere of the revolution. the people who wrote our constitution actually thought the revolution had gone too far in reducing executive power and sought to restore some type of balance. when they said in the constitution that the executive power of the united states was vested in the president that would have drawn on the discussions of what was the executive power under the theories of john locke, under montesquieu and blackstone. one thing they made clear the reason you have an executive and the reason why there's even a president is because some part of the government has to always be in being. some part of the government has to be able to respond quickly and swiftly and decisively to events that the legislature could not foresee and that the

legislature could not handle because it was many members and it was hard to get a consensus. when the framers went to the american people to seek ratification of the constitution that's how they explained the presidency. it was a controversial topic in that day too. it was an innovative first of its kind institution. most countries have a parliamentary system. what the framers had alexander hamilton in particular said the executive power, the executive is there because the executive can be swift, decisive, secret when the times call for it. hamilton then said what are the powers listed and the most important when he said was administration of war. again i'm not arguing that our constitution creates an unchecked executive view but i think that check has to come from the political process when congress uses its powers and the

courts struggle with the president for control of policy. this was again the idea that the framers and the federalist papers talks about ambition must be made to counteract ambition and each branch would be given the tools and constitutional weapons to fight each other. if congress doesn't want to use those powers that's not a constitutional fall. if congress today doesn't want to stop president obama from bombing isis that's not a constitutional defect because congress chooses not to use ample powers it has at its disposal. i would say the primary one is the power of the purse. if congress doesn't want any war to occur they just need not fund it. this was a perfect check back in the 1780s and 90s of course because we didn't have a standing army. so when the president wanted to fight a war he would have to go to congress and say please build me a military. today we have a military designed to conduct wars and

other peoples countries. it's an extradition area military and that's at the design of congress. congress has created a military designed to prevent war from ever getting here by fighting in other peoples countries. i would say we have had many decades of agreement between the president and congress. my time is up. as a law professor i have 10 more minutes. let me conclude by saying this. i think we should have concerns about executive power but i don't think it's from foreign affairs. i think many of us and in this room are concerned about president obama's refusal to enforce laws and selective use of the irs and so one. there i think he is in violation of the constitution. it was not designed to play a leading role of initiative. i think it's a mistake to assume that a narrow presidency must be

a presidency abroad or a powerful person at home has to be a powerful president abroad. >> professor thank you. john has invoked both hamilton and evoke the federalist 74 and 70 and usually and bruce invokes madison 50 and 51. so bruce where do you stand with hamilton and madison? >> it's fair to say that those that drafted and ratified the constitution were uniform in believing one that executive power of broad was the most dangerous because war is the most threatening as de tocqueville explained. secondly that was why congress is was with that decision. george washington. aside from making the neutrality proclamation also made a proclamation only congress could authorize, the offensive use of

war. thomas jefferson went to congress on repeated occasions to get authorization to fight barbary pirates. james madison made it very very clear that his rights both as a member of the house of representatives and communicating with thomas jefferson as president himself when he went to congress to fight the war of 1812, that the reason congress was entrusted with this institutional powers is the executive has an incentive to concoct excuses for war because the executive gets the power. not only was that drew in 1787 but all of history shows that were typically begins with executive officials. john jay and federalist for points out they all have these ulterior motives in the executive branch to go to war and we didn't want to be that country. so i think it's fair to say that those who are primary in drafting the constitution all agreed only congress could

authorize the initiation of war. the resulting form if you want to say declare war something else because the fact is when they thought the option of executive power unilaterally they said oh but the president needs to respond to repel sudden invasions. that is obviously something that can be done whether at pearl harbor were otherwise. now we go to the idea of the executive power that john was making with regard to mr. lincoln. the confederates bombed and shelled fort sumter. he wasn't the one who initiated warfare. it was the equivalent of the japanese attack on pearl harbor. lincoln didn't say we can go to war with the union together. there was were initiated against the union forces. moreover he then with regard to his extraordinary use of executive power asked and received congressional ratification for what he had done. he recognized that there was an illegitimacy with unilateral

executive action. i also dispute the idea that we had all these great things that have happened by giving the president unilateral authority. take for example vietnam. it was the gulf of tonkin resolution that said the president wants to go to war and now we have 58,000 names and people wondered why did they die die? what did they die for? says john kerry said before he became secretary of state and before he he entered the senate who was going to tell the last soldier in vietnam when he died for? who's going to tell the last soldier who dies in afghanistan what he died for. by the way president obama did not take her church from afghanistan. indeed the initiative increase the troops in afghanistan. they are still there today. what happens in 2015 nobody knows but that ought to be decision that congress makes. lastly i don't think simply

because congress is derelict in exercising its responsibilities that exonerates the presidential lawlessness as well. after all we do have a third branch of government called the federal judiciary which should step in inappropriate occasions and find at the two branches abdicate their responsibilities the court can hold things unconstitutional. one of the great oversights on that happened in world war ii. remember pursuant to executive order that congress ratified president roosevelt created concentration camps for 120,000 japanese american citizens and resident aliens based upon the intelligence they got from general dewitt on the west coast. even though he couldn't find any evidence of sabotage or espionage amongst the japanese americans it was a confirming indication that treason was afoot. it's a clever to hide what they

were doing. there is an example where the supreme court got cases unfolded. it could make a great statement at the outset, racial distinctions are odi in times of war. in any event i don't think we can just wash our hands just because the congress and the president don't understand their constitutional responsibilities. >> john bruce's made a strong argument about congress and the judiciary that somehow loses its way. what is your reaction to that line of reasoning and argument? >> first i think it might be an artifact of the modern time to assume the president who is the most warlike and congresses are pacifists and therefore we should give them a check on the presidency. obviously we have lived in times

where the exact reverse was the case where congress have been the warlike. the war of 1812 in a war of 1898. wars of congress were warlike and the president was not and to say we have to design this entire system to because they were worried about the executive alone being to warlike and interested in military ventures and the congress being pacifist is i think mistaken. second i think there's always going to make mistakes in government decisions and there will always be the stakes in wars. i think what bruce is focusing on an harvey's question raises this he is only talking about one kind of error what social scientists those of you are heard -- who are not interested in social scientist can leave the social sciences will cause there is where you go to war by mistake. iraq or vietnam and i would

disagree with bruce that he thinks afghanistan gets into this category as well. if i could take a quote about the soldier dying in afghanistan. those are wars where we should have gone to war. the framers could be equally worried about what we called type two errors, errors of omission times we should've gone to war when they shouldn't. i would say world war ii is a good example of that. a war that was just and we shouldn't have gone into. the framers did not want to have a paralyzed government. i worry that creating a system like the kind bruce is in favor of which i might add which is not one the congress and presidents followed when they put the constitution and to practice practice that this would lead to paralysis of our ability to defend ourselves. the last thing bruce made reference to all the framers agreed about this and about war. i don't think that's true either either. i would take a look at the constitutional text and i have a

free copy someone just gave me. we all have a copy with us. article i section 10 says no state shall without the consent of congress engage in war. and msn dated or in imminent danger without delay. that is exactly the constitutional balance of powers their bruce thing should apply between a president congress. all you would have had to do as a frame or what to take up the word state and say no president shall without the consent of congress engage in war. with the exceptions everyone thinks ought to be in there unless we are invaded. why can't our framers have written that exact clause if that is what they intended? instead they didn't. they wrote provisions like some

powers to the president some to congress and expected them divided out. i wanted to bring the argument to the contemporary period. i know john you were involved in the authorization for the use of military force and a broad power gave the president. i thought i would let bruce go gophers. your understanding of the authorization and the president's current request that perhaps it requires another authorization to use military force in the current situation. could you address this? >> the authorization to use military force language describes the universe of targets that the president can set. as those who are complicit. it can be persons organizations individuals complicit in 9/11

were harbored those who are. it's not an authorization to go after every terrorist in the world. it's an authorization to target those who are complicit in the 9/11 abominations. president obama is saying that a umf authorizes him to bomb and today there's a suggestion that military advisers can lead ground troops if the air campaign will not work which it surely will not. it's not going to work on isis but in any event isis which is an opponent of al qaeda could be rivals and didn't even exist in 2001. they fall within the amuf that congress thought it was organizing that didn't exist at the time.

going to war without any congressional authorization by the way there's a difference between baby being sympathetic to war and voting for it. in 1812 it was the president of the united states, james madison who asked for a declaration of war. congress didn't spontaneously vote for it but the same thing happened in the spanish-american war pitted the congress was more aggressive than the present they could have passed the bill and send it to him for his signature. >> the war of 1812 i remember correctly the british were able to successfully invade. >> harvey is from canada so he's trying to stack some of the historical facts. john the authorization for use of military force is historically unique in that it authorizes the military force as bruce pointed out not only for states but for organizations and persons. that i think was unprecedented in our congressional executive

relationship with power. could you address that? >> before you get to the amf i'm not sure whether bruce's argument is war or against present to act with congressional authorization. drones are terrible things. those are things that congress authorize presidential action and those decisions have come up in congress for support so sometimes i think the argument is just against the idea of the war or the harshness of a four and i would agree that war is harsh. if we are debating whether the congress and the present have to agree that something entirely different. that is the question is the amuf from 2001 and i confess i participate in the drafting sewing applies here. is it authorizes force against isis? it depends on how connected is isis to al qaeda. there are conflicting reports

that isis at one point was part of al qaeda and now there are reports in the paper that al qaeda and isis are fighting each other. isis is not part of al qaeda. i don't think it falls within the amuf. i think attention to focus on the 2002 amuf to use force against iraq. if you look at carefully how that was written it doesn't talk about using force against saddam hussein. it doesn't talk about the regime. it talks about threats to the u.s. national security from iraq. if isis represents a terrorist organization that has modern weaponry that has large population and territory control and resources financial and they intend to attack us as they appear to and say so in public i think they may fall under the 2002 amuf. and it's up to president obama to go to the american people in

the congress as to why he thinks the facts fit under the statue. they are much broader than any authorizations in the past because they are not limited by time or geography certainly but that puts us back into september 18, 2001 when it was written and passed. we were not sure exactly who had attacked us yet and we wanted to make sure that should al qaeda evolve or metamorphosis i is, i'm not sure if that's a word, transform itself into different groups rename itself but the authorization would still be able to follow them and the people who are helping them no matter what they might call their organizational chart were what they might say are their change in goals. [inaudible] >> i promised i would save time for the audience and i usually try to keep my promises.

why do you stand up and say your name and who you are and your affiliation so you have a sense of where the question is coming from. >> i am an adjunct professor of law at catholic university. my understanding of the constitution was that there was a financial part of this too that they saw that the kings in europe were getting their countries into war in bankrupting them. and they felt they wanted to restrain the spending of the people's money in bankrupting the country by engaging in all these foreign wars. therefore they put the authority and the congress because they didn't feel the executive had a

tendency to get involved in world wars. and then if anybody wants to talk about the financial part of this. i know how much the war in iraq cost the country. >> professor i agree with you and i agree and that's why the power of the purse is in the hands of congress. congress has given the authority authority, the sole authority to fund the military for a two-year period. and i think that's the real check on any kind of executive war-making or aggrandize me. i will give you one historical example which i think supports this and this is the basic constitutional mechanism not they not declare war clause but the specific spending power. when the constitution came up for ratification in virginia which was the most important gratification state. virginia had and joined the

union. we would have no presents for the first 20 some years. >> john adams existed. >> i like to skip over him. so boring. patrick henry mr. give me liberty or give me death they bruce fein of his day. patrick henry and the ratification made many the same arguments. he said we have created a potential monarch. he's going to use the commander-in-chief power in his power of the military and the opportunity for war to take civil liberties and impose a tierney. james madison who was the guy who drafted the constitution was the leader of the fight for the constitution of virginia. his reply was not oh don't worry the declare war clause is there. don't worry congress has permission. the answer was this said under constitution as it is in england the sword and the purse are separate. the parliament can always cut off funds if the king chooses to fight a war and he said so will

be the united states. congress can -- always have control and without it the president cannot wage war. so i agree that it's that check however today congress has chosen to fund the wars. it's not a failure of the constitution our democratic system. it's just that congress and the president are in agreement. >> clearly congress has the power. >> there is more than one way to try to corral the president. the fare war clauses one and madison did state the power of the person able congress to address all of its grievances and in fact it did so on one occasion. the vietnam war was brought to a close when congress simply said there's no more money to fight the war in indochina indochina. president president nixon obeyed that law and not many others but he did allay that one. there is still a problem with

that approach however relying exclusively on the power of the person that is we know what happened. the president sent his troops into war. they are in some kind of danger and then it's viewed if you vote to cut off the funds you are creating danger for our troops. that script is played out repeatedly in contemporary politics. i don't see why there's anything wrong with understanding its is more than one check on presidential licentiousness and eagerness to go to war. and i don't think also with regard to that the congress is not not authorized the president to use the predator drones to kill american citizens on his say-so alone. indeed when that issue arose in conjunction with john brennan's nomination to be director of the cia approved very controversial. we sort of got wobbly answer from eric holder on what the president could do or could not

but congress surely is not authorized the statute who says we are here by empowering the president to kill american citizens just because he thinks there's a danger and there's no judicial review. >> good evening. my name is ann and i'm a retired u.s. army colonel and also a former diplomat who helped reopen the embassy in kabul afghanistan in december 2001 and then i were signed in 2003 in opposition to the war in iraq. so all of this is very personal to me like many of you all. the either intended or unintended consequences of giving legal opinions to allow a president to do essentially whatever he wants to do i think has been very dangerous for our country and the rest of the world. how can we control these types of presidential decisions backed

up by john yoo and a host of lawyers who in my opinion did not serve the government while in the people well by the allowing of this type of overreach by the president. thank you. [applause] >> i think we are doing now because it was conveyed about one year ago when president obama was poised to launch about 600 cruise missiles into syria and the american people were awakened from their unfortunate slumber and wrote in an campaign with members of congress and said no we do not want another war. the president retreated and the congress hemmed in hot in do it do anything we we ultimately did up with this rather amateurish believe that if we destroy the chemical weapons it was all right to kill them by other means and we think we accomplish great things. that shows, the syrian example shows that the congress and the

president still are responsive to what the american people believe are the requirements of danger that justified going to war. [inaudible] >> how do you understand those roles as constitutional -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry the colonel didn't think much of my government service. i'm sorry about that however i respect your service and i'm out of your point of view. [inaudible] >> that's not what he said in your question however let me answer the question. first i would say my belief is that each branch of government is responsible for advancing its own policies and its own constitutional powers and i

think if there are lawyers in the executive branch who have maintained this position that goes back many decades thinking that the president can use force and even without any any congressional vote for decoration of war than i expect congress to have its own lawyers and his own institutions and they are supposed to fight back. that is what the framers intended. that is how they intended our constitutional mechanism to work. so i don't think, if you go back to 2001, you were there and i was there. this is not a case where the president will say i'm going to war and congress. this is not aware where congress was saying please don't go to work. this is a case where congress is attacking the executive if you remember those days for being too passive for allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. my memory is the president of congress were in a fair amount of agreement in 2001 to be very aggressive in taking the fight into afghanistan and taking the fight against the terrorists. i don't see this division of

authority between the president and congress. we obviously have one now and we have had one at least since 2004, 2005. that shouldn't detract from the constitutional system that broke down in 2001. i don't think the president and congress were in disagreement and i don't see signs from that first year, first two years of congress trying to stop the president anyway from conducting the war. in fact i think if congress had won if they had ample ample powers at their disposal to do so when they chose not to exercise. instead they pass the amuf in 2004 in an unprecedented broad authorization to use force. >> i need to give a counterexample because this is important that the model for government service. this is my involvement in watergate and there came a time time -- i was at the justice

department at the time of watergate and the attorney general was elliott richardson. the president of united states believed he had the authority to fire unilaterally archibald cox. it was a special prosecutor who was getting dangerously close to uncovering criminal evidence against the president. mr. richardson said no i am quitting. i'm not firing archibald cox. the deputies that i am quitting too. i'm not firing archibald cox even though you are dragging me to do that. the entire department of justice in the aftermath gave standing ovations bigger than the olympics for that courage. that's an alternate way to -- judge bork what happened is the department would have been a specialist without a solicitor general who was acting in judge bork was approached by mr. -- mr. richardson and asked to stay on so the prosecutor's office would not dissolve.

>> i can't let that example go. >> now you know why they asked me to do this. >> first i don't know bruce but i think it was constitutionally incorrect for the attorney general to say the president cannot fire prosecutor so i think they were in the wrong and i think judge bork did the right thing. he carried out the president's order. the president is the chief law enforcement officer. congress's power to respond was to impeach a president. >> you missed an important point. the case went to litigation and judge gerhardt bussell ruled that it was illegal and wrongful to discharge mr. richardson despite your view of the constitution. >> good evening. i'm at the institute for justice and speaking of justice bork i

have a question about the role of the court specifically the role of the courts keeping the executive in check. cora matsuda was mentioned earlier and one of the things that is remarkable about the case of coors is that d. with's general dewitt's final report used to support the revocation orders was later revealed to be based on deeply flawed information. the justice department's new was deeply flawed when it argued the case before the supreme court. koro mod to was pardoned decades after and sent to concentration camp because of it. what i'm interested in is what the courts can do to ensure that the executive insofar as it's making assertions as doing so grounded in facts and evidence particularly given that the facts and evidence used to justify the executive actions are largely hidden from the public and because of national

security allegedly we can't even know about them. >> i think the courts should renounce this foolish doctrine of ultimate deference to foreign affairs because they purportedly are omniscient and have their sources of information. they have huge ulterior motives repeatedly done to lie. the most famous case was reynolds versus the united states, the first modern-day claim of state secrets in which years later the secret report that was not viewed by the justices show that the secretary of air force had lied in suggesting if you examined the after exam report the cause of death you would disclose state secrets and there was nothing of the kind kind. you just disclose the negligence of the government in the united states.

this blind deference to the executive branch can and be cognizant of faults are your motives at work. >> i think that was a question hostile to my site and friendly to bruce's. so i should get to speak twice as long. first the courts have never decided such a question. they have consistently stayed out of disputes between the president congress because of overwork because they think they realize one that they don't want the slippery slope argument. what questions are they not going to address and they were reviewing all kinds of operational decisions into cup because they think they realized the president congress can fend for themselves. if you are a civil libertarian you have a limited amount of political capital and you would

think they would want want to devote it to individual liberties cases cannot adjudicate cases between the two great branches of government. i'm not a big fan of judges and i would disagree with many things they have done but intimacy breeds contempt i suppose. i have clerked with the d.c. cord and i admire individual courts but i think the judiciary has done wrong wrong things too payday don't think the answer to the war powers issues is to call for more judicial intervention into the system. >> i see three questions. sir. >> an economist and member of the committee, i thought bruce fein made a good point about transparency and the lack of it in the exercise of executive power. how you would prescribe to the president whatever judicial

procedures were involved in the exercise of war powers transparency which would satisfy the american voter. >> i don't know if i have answer for the american voter. it's a good question because i think the countervailing concern is that you don't want to have the premature release of information to harm the operational security whatever mission are armed forces are being asked to carry out. obviously you want to have as much of a public debate as possible over when to use force. we are having one right now but isis and we are doing right on this room but you don't want to have excessive details put in the public or wax would be self-defeating. i think that has been a particular problem fighting al qaeda and other terrorist groups which rely on secrecy, rely on surprise attacks on civilians by disguising themselves for their success.

our ability to defeat them is really based on our own intelligence and ability to act secretly too. i think what the president and congress have tried to work out over the last decades is better than i think is as good as we can hope or which is the president congress often lead together in classified settings or representatives of the two branches and the president can disclose that information to congress. if congress disagrees and is not approved and doesn't support these they can choose not too funny. this is our system for cia covert action works. the executive branch comes to the intelligence committee and a brief them on covert actions. congress has an implicit check on every single one that they choose not to fund them but at the same time you have a democratic accountability between the two branches elected differently at different times. you also maintain the ability to have secretly. you could take the perspective of secretary of war henry

stimson once had. when he became secretary of war he found out that the united states had extensive electronic surveillance program against germany and other countries. this was just last year. it was last year but it was also 100 years ago. he said gentlemen don't read each other's mail and he shut that program down in the years before the rise of hitler and the imperial japan and pearl harbor. i think that's a mistake. you can have a point of view everything should be in public and we should not have the cia or in an essay and we should have no secret parts of our government fighting these kinds of enemies. ..

they had the foreign intelligence surveillance act passed only after the disclosure by "the new york times." with regards to just the general transparency, the members of the intelligence committee will tell you they learned more what was going frontal wikileaks than from every single overslight hearing, that the nsa was coming up the cia and otherwise. some of them refused to even attend discovery sight hearings, saying bruce i could read more